1/2/2024 0 Comments Diskkeeper run defrag![]() More RAM = More cache = less reliance on Disk I/O speed. If you have an Exchange 2K server with 512MB or less RAM, consider upgrading to as much RAM as your server can hold. When our Exchange 5.5 DB was heavily fragmented, it took nearly 90 seconds to bring up Outlook and after the defrag, it was less than 2 seconds. (Detailed below) A solid benchmark to watch, is how long it takes for a user to bring up Outlook. If you are running Exchange 5.5 or earlier (which whon't use more than 512MB of RAM well) then you NEED to defrag. Well, you've got a few things to consider:Īre you running Exchange 5.5 or earlier or Exchange 2K, and how much RAM do you have? (Edit: I wrote this before reading the more detailed hardware specs above.) You gain some small optimizations within the DB due to the defrag of the internal data but I would seriously doubt this would ever result in a significant performance increase. By defragging it you gain the 300mb of space back but the DB begins growing again right away. The DB will not grow much beyond 55gb until this 300mb of free space is used. But why bother? The 300mb of free space this guy has will be used by new messages. If you do the backup steps and try it there is little to risk. There is no risk to that (bar the usual - what if diskeepr crashes or screws up but!)ĭefragging the exchange stores via eseutil is a very different proposition though. However if the services are shut down, you've made backups (online + offline), all you are doing is defragging physical files on the HD via diskeeper. Yeah its not a good idea to run diskeeper etc (IMHO) on a live Exchange box. "defragmenting," or "anti-virus," or "virus" under echange 5.5 returns no to little results. But their site is not returning good results. I recall seeing a MSKB article that recommends against running defrag/AV utilities on the store directories, and it lists other pertinant directories as well (logs, etc). What is a good way to work around database corruption? Driving home tonight I was thinking that adding a second exchange box, moving all mailboxes to it, then running eseutil on the first server, then moving everything back might do the trick, but would be time consuming. In a previous posting I believe svdsinner stated that he got some good performance gains from running diskeeper on his exchange server. The most recent 1221 events say that there is about 300 megs white space, so not much will be gained from it. I didn't design it, and efforts to change it thus far have failed with the PHB (who was responsible for making the mess).Īnyways, y'all have confirmed my initial thoughts that running eseutil is not a great idea. Before you say it, yes I know this setup sucks. ![]() There is a C partition that is 8 gigs, and the other partition is about 330 gigs, with 125 gigs free. NO seperate spindles for the system files or log files. The current exchange box is a Dell 4400 dual p3 800 one gig ram catch is that there is only one raid 5 array. Put Exchange logs on a different spindle to your DB. stop all non-essential OS servers (Especially all Exchange services) and run diskeeper. Skim read this bit View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yeah you need to run diskeepr (though even then I don't think you'll find it the miracle cure).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |